|
|
CINCINNATI First Half Results HOUSTON |
|
| 21 | 7 Final 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFC Wild Card Playoffs |
|
| | |
101 | CINCINNATI | 21.5 | 102 | HOUSTON | -2.5 |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 10-6 | +3.9 | 9-6 | 6-10 | 24.4 | 13.6 | 332.7 | (5.5) | 1.6 | 20.0 | 9.0 | 319.8 | (5.2) | 1.9 | Road Games | 6-2 | +4.5 | 6-2 | 4-4 | 24.6 | 14.5 | 360.5 | (5.6) | 2.2 | 20.1 | 10.0 | 304.1 | (5.2) | 1.9 | Last 3 Games | 3-0 | +3.3 | 3-0 | 1-2 | 23.3 | 9.0 | 235.0 | (4.1) | 1.7 | 13.3 | 9.0 | 284.3 | (4.5) | 3.0 | Grass Games | 6-1 | +5.5 | 6-1 | 3-4 | 26.3 | 15.1 | 366.0 | (5.7) | 2.3 | 16.7 | 9.0 | 286.1 | (4.9) | 2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 24.4 | 13.6 | 18.2 | 30:26 | 27-109 | (4.1) | 21-34 | 61.9% | 224 | (6.6) | 61-333 | (5.5) | (13.6) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 23 | 11.4 | 19.8 | 31:36 | 28-114 | (4.1) | 21-34 | 61.0% | 230 | (6.7) | 62-344 | (5.5) | (14.9) | Offense Road Games | 24.6 | 14.5 | 19.9 | 31:59 | 30-115 | (3.9) | 22-35 | 62.2% | 245 | (7.1) | 64-360 | (5.6) | (14.6) | Defense (All Games) | 20.0 | 9.0 | 19.2 | 29:34 | 26-108 | (4.1) | 22-35 | 61.8% | 212 | (6.1) | 61-320 | (5.2) | (16) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 21.4 | 10.1 | 19.4 | 30:56 | 26-110 | (4.2) | 21-35 | 60.9% | 230 | (6.6) | 61-340 | (5.5) | (15.9) | Defense Road Games | 20.1 | 10.0 | 18.9 | 28:01 | 25-101 | (4.1) | 20-33 | 58.6% | 203 | (6.1) | 58-304 | (5.2) | (15.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
Stats For (All Games) | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 14-5 | 34.1% | 1-1 | 68.7% | 3-58 | (22.6) | 3-31 | (10.6) | 6-54 | Opponents Avg. Stats Against | 0.8 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 13-5 | 38.4% | 1-0 | 54.1% | 3-62 | (23.3) | 23-2 | (9.9) | 7-56 | Stats For (Road Games) | 1.2 | 1.0 | 2.2 | -0.4 | 14-4 | 32.7% | 1-1 | 60.0% | 2-45 | (19.9) | 3-32 | (9.5) | 7-60 | Stats Against (All Games) | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.9 | | 14-5 | 36.1% | 1-0 | 41.7% | 4-92 | (24.4) | 2-13 | (7.9) | 6-49 | Opponents Avg. Stats For | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.6 | | 13-5 | 37.2% | 1-0 | 46.6% | 3-72 | (24.2) | 22-2 | (9.7) | 6-56 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.9 | | 12-3 | 25.5% | 1-0 | 40.0% | 3-81 | (23.2) | 1-15 | (11) | 6-51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Games | 12-4 | +2.6 | 9-6 | 7-8 | 26.0 | 14.4 | 371.3 | (5.6) | 1.1 | 20.7 | 10.0 | 323.5 | (5.3) | 1.8 | Home Games | 6-2 | +0.2 | 5-3 | 4-4 | 29.2 | 15.5 | 374.1 | (5.7) | 1.0 | 20.6 | 10.0 | 323.2 | (5.4) | 1.6 | Last 3 Games | 1-2 | -4.7 | 1-2 | 0-3 | 17.0 | 9.7 | 318.7 | (5.7) | 1.3 | 22.7 | 12.3 | 294.0 | (4.8) | 0.7 | Grass Games | 10-2 | +4.2 | 9-3 | 5-7 | 27.4 | 16.1 | 365.6 | (5.5) | 1.0 | 17.7 | 8.1 | 306.7 | (5.2) | 2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Offense (All Games) | 26.0 | 14.4 | 21.3 | 33:46 | 32-132 | (4.2) | 22-35 | 63.9% | 239 | (6.9) | 66-371 | (5.6) | (14.3) | Opponents Defensive Avg. | 23.8 | 11.6 | 20.5 | 31:54 | 28-122 | (4.3) | 21-35 | 61.1% | 231 | (6.6) | 63-354 | (5.6) | (14.9) | Offense Home Games | 29.2 | 15.5 | 22.4 | 33:56 | 31-114 | (3.7) | 23-35 | 67.1% | 260 | (7.4) | 66-374 | (5.7) | (12.8) | Defense (All Games) | 20.7 | 10.0 | 18.2 | 27:50 | 24-98 | (4) | 19-36 | 53.0% | 226 | (6.2) | 61-323 | (5.3) | (15.6) | Opponents Offensive Avg. | 22.6 | 11.1 | 20 | 30:47 | 27-114 | (4.2) | 21-35 | 59.4% | 230 | (6.5) | 63-343 | (5.5) | (15.2) | Defense Home Games | 20.6 | 10.0 | 18.0 | 27:41 | 25-107 | (4.2) | 19-34 | 56.4% | 217 | (6.3) | 59-323 | (5.4) | (15.7) |
|
|
|
|
|
Stats For (All Games) | 0.8 | 0.2 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 14-5 | 37.6% | 0-0 | 57.1% | 3-60 | (21.7) | 2-26 | (10.6) | 7-54 | Opponents Avg. Stats Against | 0.9 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.8 | 13-5 | 38.3% | 1-0 | 50.9% | 3-60 | (23.4) | 22-2 | (9.9) | 7-56 | Stats For (Home Games) | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 13-5 | 38.5% | 0-0 | 50.0% | 3-64 | (22.2) | 2-27 | (11.9) | 5-45 | Stats Against (All Games) | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.8 | | 13-4 | 33.0% | 1-0 | 31.2% | 4-100 | (25.7) | 3-30 | (10.3) | 6-54 | Opponents Avg. Stats For | 1 | 0.7 | 1.7 | | 14-5 | 39.1% | 1-0 | 45.4% | 3-69 | (23.5) | 23-2 | (10.6) | 6-54 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.6 | | 13-4 | 30.4% | 1-0 | 30.0% | 5-114 | (24.7) | 3-28 | (9.8) | 6-57 |
|
|
Average power rating of opponents played: CINCINNATI 18.6, HOUSTON 18.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
11/11/2012 | NY GIANTS | 31-13 | W | 3.5 | W | 47 | U | 28-76 | 21-30-199 | 1 | 20-129 | 29-46-189 | 4 | 11/18/2012 | @ KANSAS CITY | 28-6 | W | -3 | W | 42 | U | 38-189 | 18-29-220 | 0 | 27-113 | 17-30-171 | 1 | 11/25/2012 | OAKLAND | 34-10 | W | -7.5 | W | 50 | U | 34-221 | 16-30-194 | 0 | 23-99 | 19-34-119 | 2 | 12/2/2012 | @ SAN DIEGO | 20-13 | W | -1 | W | 46.5 | U | 32-128 | 25-39-211 | 3 | 11-46 | 26-48-251 | 2 | 12/9/2012 | DALLAS | 19-20 | L | -3 | L | 46.5 | U | 20-146 | 20-33-190 | 1 | 24-49 | 25-43-239 | 1 | 12/13/2012 | @ PHILADELPHIA | 34-13 | W | -4.5 | W | 45 | O | 41-157 | 13-27-92 | 2 | 19-42 | 16-33-179 | 5 | 12/23/2012 | @ PITTSBURGH | 13-10 | W | 3 | W | 40 | U | 16-14 | 24-41-253 | 3 | 31-95 | 14-28-185 | 3 | 12/30/2012 | BALTIMORE | 23-17 | W | -4.5 | W | 42.5 | U | 21-47 | 15-26-142 | 0 | 46-206 | 19-33-146 | 1 | 1/5/2013 | @ HOUSTON | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/11/2012 | @ CHICAGO | 13-6 | W | 1 | W | 37 | U | 35-127 | 14-26-88 | 2 | 23-115 | 18-33-134 | 4 | 11/18/2012 | JACKSONVILLE | 43-37 | W | -15 | L | 40.5 | O | 35-136 | 43-55-504 | 3 | 29-86 | 18-35-372 | 1 | 11/22/2012 | @ DETROIT | 34-31 | W | -3 | T | 48.5 | O | 28-205 | 29-48-296 | 1 | 23-106 | 31-61-419 | 1 | 12/2/2012 | @ TENNESSEE | 24-10 | W | -7 | W | 48 | U | 35-125 | 21-35-207 | 0 | 17-89 | 21-45-265 | 6 | 12/10/2012 | @ NEW ENGLAND | 14-42 | L | 5.5 | L | 50.5 | O | 27-100 | 21-36-223 | 1 | 33-130 | 21-36-289 | 1 | 12/16/2012 | INDIANAPOLIS | 29-17 | W | -10.5 | W | 48 | U | 32-178 | 23-31-239 | 0 | 25-124 | 13-27-148 | 1 | 12/23/2012 | MINNESOTA | 6-23 | L | -7.5 | L | 43.5 | U | 16-34 | 18-33-153 | 2 | 42-174 | 16-30-171 | 1 | 12/30/2012 | @ INDIANAPOLIS | 16-28 | L | -6.5 | L | 47 | U | 20-102 | 24-36-250 | 2 | 33-81 | 14-28-184 | 0 | 1/5/2013 | CINCINNATI | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
| CINCINNATI: The Bengals returned to a run-first offense in 2011, and that should continue with BenJarvus Green-Ellis stepping in for Cedric Benson. Offensive coordinator Jay Gruden mixed in some more zone blocking principles and stretch plays last year, something that didn't fit with Benson at all. The Bengals have been looking to get Bernard Scott more involved, and this year they should be able to do it. Expect a 60/40 early-down split for Green-Ellis and Scott, with Brian Leonard keeping his third down role because of his ability as a pass protector. Green-Ellis figures to be the focal point of their red zone offense, just like Benson was a year ago. Gruden's offense is West Coast in terminology, but they pressure secondaries deep. A lot of their best plays were jump balls to A.J. Green. Either rookies Mohamed Sanu or Marvin Jones, or Jordan Shipley could slide in opposite Green on the outside, and Gruden will have to tweak the offense since none of them are deep threats. They use a lot of three-WR sets, so there should be ample playing time for two of those secondary targets. TE Jermaine Gresham is the No. 2 target for Dalton, and this offense creates room for him over the middle. The backs are more for pass protection than receiving skills. Gruden gets a little more pass-happy in the red zone, but not absurdly so. When they do throw, Green is overwhelmingly the most popular target. The Bengals defense showed an ability to get to the quarterback in 2011, with 14 players contributing at least one sack to a total that placed fifth in the NFL. Rookie CB Dre' Kirkpatrick will help out the defense with his coverage skills, but this unit doesn't make enough big plays to provide the offense with a lot of short fields. The one guy in the secondary who is capable of making a big play is Reggie Nelson, a rangy centerfielder at free safety with solid ball skills. | | HOUSTON: The Texans run the league's premier zone-blocking scheme, and they utilize it early and often. Last year, only the Tim Tebow Broncos were more run-heavy than Houston, who kept it on the ground even when quarterback Matt Schaub was healthy. When he's under center, Arian Foster still takes about 70 percent of the reps despite the emergence of Ben Tate. The Texans keep it run-heavy in the red zone, but they're much more likely to spell Foster with Tate in red zone situations. The Texans use a West Coast passing game that doesn't take a lot of chances downfield. Andre Johnson is the focal point, and they'll play him at numerous spots and are especially effective putting him in motion and creating mismatches. Owen Daniels should be healthier in his second year back from a torn ACL and is essentially the No. 2 receiver in this offense. Foster is used frequently in the screen game. Jacoby Jones had been used as a deep threat, but that role could go to rookie DeVier Posey following Jones' departure. When the Texans throw in the red zone, there is no clear-cut top option. Johnson usually draws a lot of attention, and Daniels led the team in red zone targets and catches. They'll go with two tight ends often near the goal line, and the second tight end (possibly Garrett Graham) will be targeted on the occasional play-action. Wade Phillips made dramatic improvements to this defense last year, but he also had better personnel to work with, especially in the secondary with newcomers Johnathan Joseph and Danieal Manning. Youngsters J.J. Watt and Connor Barwin are relentless pass rushers who create turnovers, and the team really didn't miss Mario Williams after he went down with a season-ending injury in October. Brian Cushing had a big year after moving inside in Phillips' 3-4 defense. With the amount of blitzing Houston does, he'll continue to make life difficult for opposing quarterbacks. |
|
|
Game Notes: |
|
Last Updated: 3/29/2024 7:57:04 AM EST. |
|
|